2016 Presidential Candidate

[Technigull]

Incomes up to $50k would be income tax exempt, so most of those 50% still wouldn't pay aside from the sales tax aspect.  They would have more income from the get-go as it wouldn't likely be leeched out at payroll time.

[nereo]

Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.

Fascist?  Really??  Seems too far to me...
here's a fascist:
[see above]

there's different definitions of facism, check out this one
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Fascism is also a term that's so negatively charged that it's almost impossible to label someone as a fascist without the historical baggage of Italy in WWII.
Also, I fail to see how either Jeb or Hilary fit the definition you provided - no more so at least than a wide swath of elected officials over the last 10+ years.

[Jeremy E.]

I wasn't sure about this, he said families of 4+ making under 50k would be tax exempt so I'm not entirely sure what that means, he also said he's getting rid of the standard deduction, but it sounds like maybe there will be a bigger exemption. I'd like to see a more detailed description of it but don't have time to look for it or go over it. I consider myself republican in most aspects but I do think that I like the idea of a progressive tax code, since I plan on retiring with a net worth of only around 500k, the Standard Deduction will be my friend(The other non-republic issue being that I support gay marriage, but that has been solved so no longer will it affect my votes).

[Eric]

What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan

Thanks for that --- I just looked it up.   I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes.   This just looks like the flat tax again.  Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.

Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy.  It's not remotely close to reality.  Every single person pays taxes.  It's not like there's a way to avoid it.  Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes.  There's a huge difference.  Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?

[forummm]

I'm currently pulling for Rand Paul.  I find his tax plan very mustashian friendly for the nation.  Throw that IRS tax monster in the woodchipper...  Though the chainsaw would be fun too.  (referencing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtglptO4v34)

These kind of goofy stunts are irritating. Shooting bills, burning them, chain saws, etc. Come on and let's be adults.

Paul's plan would be a giant tax cut for the rich and otherwise very high income. That's the point of it. They would go from ~40% to 14.5%. It would do that by raising taxes on many in the middle class. And it would increase the deficit. It also creates a new VAT, so it shifts the tax burden further onto the lower income people because they use a higher percent of their income for necessary goods and services.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-22/rand-paul-s-implausible-flat-tax

I'd be very happy to strip out a lot of the tax code. But you can do that and still keep the progressive tax structure we have now.

[forummm]

What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan

Thanks for that --- I just looked it up.   I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes.   This just looks like the flat tax again.  Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.

Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy.  It's not remotely close to reality.  Every single person pays taxes.  It's not like there's a way to avoid it.  Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes.  There's a huge difference.  Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?

SS, MC, property, sales, etc.

[nereo]

I'm currently pulling for Rand Paul.  I find his tax plan very mustashian friendly for the nation.  Throw that IRS tax monster in the woodchipper...  Though the chainsaw would be fun too.  (referencing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtglptO4v34)

These kind of goofy stunts are irritating. Shooting bills, burning them, chain saws, etc. Come on and let's be adults.

I know it's just a political stunt, but my first reaction to seeing that was "god, that's such an enormous waste of paper!  And it's paper with OBAs!"

Paul's plan would be a giant tax cut for the rich and otherwise very high income. That's the point of it. They would go from ~40% to 14.5%. It would do that by raising taxes on many in the middle class. And it would increase the deficit. It also creates a new VAT, so it shifts the tax burden further onto the lower income people because they use a higher percent of their income for necessary goods and services.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-22/rand-paul-s-implausible-flat-tax

I'd be very happy to strip out a lot of the tax code. But you can do that and still keep the progressive tax structure we have now.

I also want a drastically simplified tax code that remains progressive. 
I also wish that people would understand the tax code is the domain of congress... of course this is exactly why it's 70,000 pages long and has so many exemptions, loop-holes, etc.

[Bob W]

What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan

Thanks for that --- I just looked it up.   I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes.   This just looks like the flat tax again.  Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.

Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy.  It's not remotely close to reality.  Every single person pays taxes.  It's not like there's a way to avoid it.  Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes.  There's a huge difference.  Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?

Eric,  We are talking about federal income taxes here  --- not state, property, city, inflation etc..    "Every single person pays taxes.  It's not like there's a way to avoid it."   (Eric,  you may have misspoken or want to restate that ---  It seems a little detached from reality as it reads with regard to federal income tax?)

I may not have read the details as to who he would exempt from the taxes he proposes.   My disenchantment was not with his shell game on taxes it was that he didn't make a clear proposal to reduce federal income taxes.   

And just so you understand --- look around --- not everyone is paying federal income taxes or even a net negative tax.   Most all children under 16 pay no tax and receive no refund.   All of my low income clients neither file tax returns nor pay taxes, nor receive refunds.   That holds true for 10s of millions. 

And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .   One of my daughters for instance received $5K in negative taxes last year.  Pretty sweet for her.   

Lastly,  the President has very little to say about the tax code.  That is primarily the congressional bailiwick.     

[Jeremy E.]

What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan

Thanks for that --- I just looked it up.   I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes.   This just looks like the flat tax again.  Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.

Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy.  It's not remotely close to reality.  Every single person pays taxes.  It's not like there's a way to avoid it.  Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes.  There's a huge difference.  Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?

Eric,  We are talking about federal income taxes here  --- not state, property, city, inflation etc..    "Every single person pays taxes.  It's not like there's a way to avoid it."   (Eric,  you may have misspoken or want to restate that ---  It seems a little detached from reality as it reads with regard to federal income tax?)

I may not have read the details as to who he would exempt from the taxes he proposes.   My disenchantment was not with his shell game on taxes it was that he didn't make a clear proposal to reduce federal income taxes.   

And just so you understand --- look around --- not everyone is paying federal income taxes or even a net negative tax.   Most all children under 16 pay no tax and receive no refund.   All of my low income clients neither file tax returns nor pay taxes, nor receive refunds.   That holds true for 10s of millions. 

And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .   One of my daughters for instance received $5K in negative taxes last year.  Pretty sweet for her.   

Lastly,  the President has very little to say about the tax code.  That is primarily the congressional bailiwick.   

Rand Paul is in the senate and if he becomes president he will have more say than a majority of congressional members on this subject, however I'm fairly certain we will always have a progressive tax code.

[nereo]

Lastly,  the President has very little to say about the tax code.  That is primarily the congressional bailiwick.   

This.  We don't always see eye to eye on things Bob W., but it makes me happy when we do!

[Glenstache]

And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .   

Please provide support for this, or clarify what you mean. My understanding is that much of the southern republican base also falls in this category, for example. At a state-average level, this certainly seems to be the case:
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

[Jack]

Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.

Fascist?  Really??  Seems too far to me...
here's a fascist:
[pic of Mussolini]

By fascist I'm referring to authoritarian corporatism. Clinton and Bush (and most of the rest of the candidates) may not be as extreme as Mussolini, but they really don't differ that much in ideology. It's merely a difference of degree, not kind.

Also, I fail to see how either Jeb or Hilary fit the definition you provided - no more so at least than a wide swath of elected officials over the last 10+ years.

That's the thing: a wide swath of elected officials over the last 10+ years are fascist, and America is now a fascist state. That's how things like the PATRIOT Act, Kelo v. New London and Citizens United were allowed to happen. That's why the Trans-Pacific Partnership will become law, despite the fact that it's objectively terrible for just about everybody but multinational corporations. That's why we're engaged in almost what amounts to a pogrom against black people, and why Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.

[Midwest]

Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.

Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?

[Jeremy E.]

Weird, since I've made the comment about Rand Paul getting a lot of votes over night, he has gotten no votes since then, do Rand Paul supporters only come out at night?

[sol]

Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.

Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?

What other context do you need?

The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills.  They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic.  Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists."  I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more.  What would make it any more clear for you?

[forummm]

Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.

Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?

What other context do you need?

The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills.  They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic.  Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists."  I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more.  What would make it any more clear for you?

It would be a better analogy if Trump wanted them all rounded up and taken to an area on the other side of a big fence...

[Eric]

Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.

Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?

What other context do you need?

The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills.  They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic.  Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists."  I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more.  What would make it any more clear for you?

It would be a better analogy if Trump wanted them all rounded up and taken to an area on the other side of a big fence...

Hahahahahaha!

[G-dog]

Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.

Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?

What other context do you need?

The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills.  They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic.  Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists."  I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more.  What would make it any more clear for you?

It would be a better analogy if Trump wanted them all rounded up and taken to an area on the other side of a big fence...

Hahahahaha. <snort>
Good one!

[Tyson]

I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.

Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.

Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though?   Is someone stuffing the ballot box?  And what about the Democrats?   Is that the best they could come up with?  Where are the freaking Dems?  Sanders is an independent for God sake.

The overall R/D split is pretty close to that of the general population.  Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, remember.

I'm finding it interesting the differences between these results and the general population:
1)  The Republicans most likely to win the nomination are polling well below the general population (Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio)
2) Rand Paul is about ~5-10 times more popular on this forum than in the general population
3) Sanders is similarly ~5 times more popular on this forum (relatively to Clinton) than in the general population

These differences can be attributed to media fuckwads screwing with public opinion. If Bernie Sanders loses the Democrat primary, it will be precisely because the media pervasively indoctrinated the public into believing he couldn't win. Rand Paul is being similarly marginalized. All Scott Walker has done is fuck up his state in every way he possibly could, but he's backed by the people who own the media so he's treated as a contender when by all rights he shouldn't be.

I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election.  Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates.  Fun stuff

He's a rerun of Herman Cain.

Even Cain polled better against Obama than Trump is polling against Clinton.  It's crazy!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_cain_vs_obama-2003.html

Herman Cain sucks, but comparing him to Trump is a grievous insult. Trump is easily and by a wide margin the stupidest, most racist, most boorish, least-presidential, ridiculous clown that's ever ran for president as a mainstream candidate in my lifetime.

I admit, it is nice that he's being honest with his positions -- it's just too bad his positions are mostly disgusting and reprehensible.



Anyway, I'm mostly disgusted with what passes for "presidential material" this year: All the republicans are either corrupt, bigots, pandering to authoritarian theocrats (or authoritarian theocrats themslves!), or all of the above. Hillary is also corrupt and has no goddamn principles -- she's Obama 2.0 (and that's not even slightly a compliment). Even fucking Bill had more integrity than she does!

Sanders is the only candidate who isn't a comprehensive disgrace and disaster, but of course he "can't win" because the corrupt, 1%-owned media has pre-ordained it.

Trumps positions are racist and reprehensible, and THAT is what resonates with this particular set of voters.  It's the Southern Strategy, without all the cover up and mis-direction.  Trump isn't making this stuff up, he's tapping into a well spring of support for these ideas that already exists.  If Trump is disgusting, at least he allows us to see clearly that a very large swath of the republican base agrees with him and embraces him.  I used to be a pretty staunch republican but left the party when it became clear how much this particular (white southern) group is pandered to.  So I'm voting democrat now.  And I'll continue to vote democrat until the GOP stop acting like a bunch of racist @ssholes.

[Tyson]

What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan

Thanks for that --- I just looked it up.   I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes.   This just looks like the flat tax again.  Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.

Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy.  It's not remotely close to reality.  Every single person pays taxes.  It's not like there's a way to avoid it.  Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes.  There's a huge difference.  Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?

Eric,  We are talking about federal income taxes here  --- not state, property, city, inflation etc..    "Every single person pays taxes.  It's not like there's a way to avoid it."   (Eric,  you may have misspoken or want to restate that ---  It seems a little detached from reality as it reads with regard to federal income tax?)

I may not have read the details as to who he would exempt from the taxes he proposes.   My disenchantment was not with his shell game on taxes it was that he didn't make a clear proposal to reduce federal income taxes.   

And just so you understand --- look around --- not everyone is paying federal income taxes or even a net negative tax.   Most all children under 16 pay no tax and receive no refund.   All of my low income clients neither file tax returns nor pay taxes, nor receive refunds.   That holds true for 10s of millions. 

And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .   One of my daughters for instance received $5K in negative taxes last year.  Pretty sweet for her.   

Lastly,  the President has very little to say about the tax code.  That is primarily the congressional bailiwick.   

Bob, I make $120k per year and I vote democrat, so I think your a bit off in your view of the democratic base.

Also, you live in Missouri which seems to be a pretty unhappy place.  I can see why you are so angry and frustrated.  Maybe move to a more progressive state?  I moved from Texas to Colorado (Denver, specifically) and we are MUCH happier here.  It's just a nicer place to live, all around. 

[Jeremy E.]

After minimal research, I'd like to change my answer from Sanders to Jeb Bush. August 8th this very well may change at the first GOP debate.

[Midwest]

Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.

Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?

What other context do you need?

The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills.  They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic.  Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists."  I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more.  What would make it any more clear for you?

He says candidates (plural).  Who besides trump?  Calling for border enforcement is not demonizing a group.   Trump went much further.  Cruz is Hispanic.  Bush is married to a Hispanic.  Who is the op referring to other than trump?  Trump is one candidate.

[Jack]

Trumps positions are racist and reprehensible, and THAT is what resonates with this particular set of voters.  It's the Southern Strategy, without all the cover up and mis-direction.  Trump isn't making this stuff up, he's tapping into a well spring of support for these ideas that already exists.  If Trump is disgusting, at least he allows us to see clearly that a very large swath of the republican base agrees with him and embraces him.  I used to be a pretty staunch republican but left the party when it became clear how much this particular (white southern) group is pandered to.  So I'm voting democrat now.  And I'll continue to vote democrat until the GOP stop acting like a bunch of racist @ssholes.

<---- Note the location. I am well aware.

(I must also point out that not all white southerners are like that, especially not urban ones.)

He says candidates (plural).  Who besides trump?  Calling for border enforcement is not demonizing a group.   Trump went much further.  Cruz is Hispanic.  Bush is married to a Hispanic.  Who is the op referring to other than trump?  Trump is one candidate.

Trump is hardly the first candidate to use the Southern Strategy; he's just remarkably unsubtle about it. For example, see this article about Scott Walker. If you can't see anything wrong with the other candidates' coded racism then you're either ignorant or a racist too. (Also, just because a candidate might be of a certain minority, doesn't mean he can't be bigoted about other groups, such as women, homosexuals or non-Christians.)

[sol]

Trump is one candidate.

To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.

But I think I understand.  You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate.  You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?

[Jeremy E.]

Trump is one candidate.

To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.

But I think I understand.  You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate.  You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?

There's a small possibility of Trump becoming GOPs presidential candidate, but 0% chance of him becoming president. You don't need votes from average Americans, you need votes from electors in the electoral college.

[Cressida]

And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .   

I don't even know where you're going with this. Are you suggesting that people who receive government benefits because they are poor must therefore be Democrats, because all Republicans virtuously hate government? Dude, let me assure you that poor Republicans with no earned income are not taking their Medicaid and SNAP benefits and returning them to the government out of ideological purity. WTF?

[Jeremy E.]

One good thing that could come if Hillary Clinton became president, Bill would be the first lady LOL. I was a lot younger when Bill was president and thought he was a cool dude, always gettin into wacky "shenanigans" although that's probably not what you want from a president, part of me still would like to see Bill back in the white house just for a good laugh. Although, I'm still thinking Jeb Bush seems to be the best choice for me right now, and if not him, probably whoever the GOP presidential candidate is.

[nereo]

One good thing that could come if Hillary Clinton became president, Bill would be the first lady LOL. I was a lot younger when Bill was president and thought he was a cool dude, always gettin into wacky "shenanigans" although that's probably not what you want from a president, part of me still would like to see Bill back in the white house just for a good laugh. Although, I'm still thinking Jeb Bush seems to be the best choice for me right now, and if not him, probably whoever the GOP presidential candidate is.

While some of his more recent statements have softened, I have a very hard supporting Jeb or any other candidate who won't state publicly that they believe climate change is real and that human activity is overwhelmingly responsible.  These "I'm not a scientist" and "there's not a consensus amount scientists" lines are beyond ridiculous in 2015.

You don't need votes from average Americans, you need votes from electors in the electoral college.

technically true, but in almost all states the members of the electoral college are selected by the political party who wins the popular vote in that state.  Are you suggesting that the Republicans might win the popular vote but select electoral members who would vote for someone else?  I can't imagine the outcry that would ensue - "Trump wins popular vote in majority of states, Jeb Bush selected as president"  Really??  Not happening.

[Chris22]

For example, see this article about Scott Walker.

That article was chock-full of strawmen and conclusions drawn so thinly they should be considered anorexic.  Walker is against unions because they're primarily black?  He isn't supportive of Milwaukee which is just barely black/Latino over white (57%/43%)?  Come on.  You can disagree with his policies, especially the anti-union stuff which is polarizing, but don't pretend it's because he's a closet racist. 

[Midwest]

Trump is one candidate.

To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.

But I think I understand.  You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate.  You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?

If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak.   If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name. 

Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.

[Chris22]

Trump is one candidate.

To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.

But I think I understand.  You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate.  You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?

If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak.   If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name. 

Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.

I like to think my fellow GOPers are also "supportive" of Trump because A) he's a sideshow and B) we're all just waiting for a/the serious candidate to emerge.  There are what, 16-18 candidates in the field right now?  I think most of us are just waiting for the field to thin out before choosing our horse. 

Or maybe I'm wrong and all the other Repubs are idiots, I dunno. 

[Midwest]

Trump is one candidate.

To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.

But I think I understand.  You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate.  You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?

If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak.   If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name. 

Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.

I like to think my fellow GOPers are also "supportive" of Trump because A) he's a sideshow and B) we're all just waiting for a/the serious candidate to emerge.  There are what, 16-18 candidates in the field right now?  I think most of us are just waiting for the field to thin out before choosing our horse. 

Or maybe I'm wrong and all the other Repubs are idiots, I dunno.

I hope Christie is eliminated soon.  The comment about pot last week was moronic. 

Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush.  Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.

[Chris22]

Trump is one candidate.

To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.

But I think I understand.  You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate.  You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?

If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak.   If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name. 

Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.

I like to think my fellow GOPers are also "supportive" of Trump because A) he's a sideshow and B) we're all just waiting for a/the serious candidate to emerge.  There are what, 16-18 candidates in the field right now?  I think most of us are just waiting for the field to thin out before choosing our horse. 

Or maybe I'm wrong and all the other Repubs are idiots, I dunno.

I hope Christie is eliminated soon.  The comment about pot last week was moronic. 

Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush.  Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.

I generally like Christie, but yeah, his stance on guns and now his stance on pot are just stupid.  And bridgegate was juvenile and idiotic.

[nereo]

I hope Christie is eliminated soon.  The comment about pot last week was moronic. 

Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush.  Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.

I've been thinking about that a lot lately.  Is it fair (or even sensible) to not vote for someone just because their husband or brother was president? 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but would not avoid voting for someone just because of their family name.

[forummm]

Trump is hardly the first candidate to use the Southern Strategy; he's just remarkably unsubtle about it. For example, see this article about Scott Walker. If you can't see anything wrong with the other candidates' coded racism then you're either ignorant or a racist too. (Also, just because a candidate might be of a certain minority, doesn't mean he can't be bigoted about other groups, such as women, homosexuals or non-Christians.)

The Southern Strategy has been popular since Nixon. LBJ lost the racists in the South due to the Civil Rights Act, so they turned into Republicans. It's a really common Republican tactic. Reagan gave a "states rights" speech while running for president in the same area where very notable civil rights activists were murdered. George HW Bush employed similar tactics with Willie Horton (see his campaign manager's comments below). George W Bush's campaign used similar tactics both in 2000 (like saying McCain had an illegitimate black daughter) and in 2004 (with putting gay marriage bans on the ballot in swing states to bring out the bigot vote). The drug and crime wars have always been incredibly racially oriented and racially prosecuted. Sometimes the "dog whistles" are so loud that humans can hear them. The phrases now are "entitlement reform" and "cut taxes" and "the 47%" and "the takers", etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan%27s_Neshoba_County_Fair_%22states%27_rights%22_speech

There's more info on Lee Atwater's (George H.W. Bush's campaign manager and Strom Thurmond's campaign manager) interview where he said this:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy#

[Midwest]

I hope Christie is eliminated soon.  The comment about pot last week was moronic. 

Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush.  Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.

I've been thinking about that a lot lately.  Is it fair (or even sensible) to not vote for someone just because their husband or brother was president? 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but would not avoid voting for someone just because of their family name.

My opinion of Clinton continues to drop so I'll avoid her.  At least Bernie Sanders is honest about what he is.

If Jeb Bush is similar to his brother, I'd prefer someone else.  I'm waiting for the debates on him, but that's my initial take. 

[Jeremy E.]

I hope Christie is eliminated soon.  The comment about pot last week was moronic. 

Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush.  Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.

I've been thinking about that a lot lately.  Is it fair (or even sensible) to not vote for someone just because their husband or brother was president? 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but would not avoid voting for someone just because of their family name.

My opinion of Clinton continues to drop so I'll avoid her.  At least Bernie Sanders is honest about what he is.

If Jeb Bush is similar to his brother, I'd prefer someone else.  I'm waiting for the debates on him, but that's my initial take.

Bernie Sanders is honest, and says he wants to make guns made to kill people illegal. Most can assume that means handguns and non-hunting rifles. He won't become president because a lot of his stance on this. Maybe he can become governor of California now that the governator is done.

[Jeremy E.]

One good thing that could come if Hillary Clinton became president, Bill would be the first lady LOL. I was a lot younger when Bill was president and thought he was a cool dude, always gettin into wacky "shenanigans" although that's probably not what you want from a president, part of me still would like to see Bill back in the white house just for a good laugh. Although, I'm still thinking Jeb Bush seems to be the best choice for me right now, and if not him, probably whoever the GOP presidential candidate is.

While some of his more recent statements have softened, I have a very hard supporting Jeb or any other candidate who won't state publicly that they believe climate change is real and that human activity is overwhelmingly responsible.  These "I'm not a scientist" and "there's not a consensus amount scientists" lines are beyond ridiculous in 2015.

You don't need votes from average Americans, you need votes from electors in the electoral college.

technically true, but in almost all states the members of the electoral college are selected by the political party who wins the popular vote in that state.  Are you suggesting that the Republicans might win the popular vote but select electoral members who would vote for someone else?  I can't imagine the outcry that would ensue - "Trump wins popular vote in majority of states, Jeb Bush selected as president"  Really??  Not happening.

I don't know a whole lot about Jeb Bush and didn't know he didn't believe in climate change. I definitely think we need to start becoming greener and would prefer a president who didn't veto bills that would help with that. Hopefully I'll learn more about all of the candidates on the 8th.

[Wilson Hall]

Trump is one candidate.

To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.

But I think I understand.  You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate.  You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?

If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak.   If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name. 

Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.

I like to think my fellow GOPers are also "supportive" of Trump because A) he's a sideshow and B) we're all just waiting for a/the serious candidate to emerge.  There are what, 16-18 candidates in the field right now?  I think most of us are just waiting for the field to thin out before choosing our horse. 

Or maybe I'm wrong and all the other Repubs are idiots, I dunno.

I hope Christie is eliminated soon.  The comment about pot last week was moronic. 

Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush.  Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.

Agree with you about Christie, Midwest. I also don't want another Bush or Clinton.  If that's going to be the choice, add me to the list of people voting for Gary Johnson if he runs again.

If I were completely going to vote in pure self-interest with regard to my career, Bush would be my best bet. However, I cannot forgive him for the Terri Schiavo debacle.

[Chris22]

Trump is hardly the first candidate to use the Southern Strategy; he's just remarkably unsubtle about it. For example, see this article about Scott Walker. If you can't see anything wrong with the other candidates' coded racism then you're either ignorant or a racist too. (Also, just because a candidate might be of a certain minority, doesn't mean he can't be bigoted about other groups, such as women, homosexuals or non-Christians.)

The Southern Strategy has been popular since Nixon. LBJ lost the racists in the South due to the Civil Rights Act, so they turned into Republicans. It's a really common Republican tactic. Reagan gave a "states rights" speech while running for president in the same area where very notable civil rights activists were murdered. George HW Bush employed similar tactics with Willie Horton (see his campaign manager's comments below). George W Bush's campaign used similar tactics both in 2000 (like saying McCain had an illegitimate black daughter) and in 2004 (with putting gay marriage bans on the ballot in swing states to bring out the bigot vote). The drug and crime wars have always been incredibly racially oriented and racially prosecuted. Sometimes the "dog whistles" are so loud that humans can hear them. The phrases now are "entitlement reform" and "cut taxes" and "the 47%" and "the takers", etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan%27s_Neshoba_County_Fair_%22states%27_rights%22_speech

There's more info on Lee Atwater's (George H.W. Bush's campaign manager and Strom Thurmond's campaign manager) interview where he said this:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy#

Oh, how quickly we like to revise history.  The biggot vote?  You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004?  Obama.  Hillary.  A majority in California.  Were all of these people biggots too? 

[forummm]

Oh, how quickly we like to revise history.  The biggot vote?  You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004?  Obama.  Hillary.  A majority in California.  Were all of these people biggots too? 

Yes, with respect to this issue. I was too for a long time.

[Jack]

Oh, how quickly we like to revise history.  The biggot[sic] vote?  You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004?  Obama.  Hillary.  A majority in California.  Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?

Yes.

Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.

[Midwest]

Oh, how quickly we like to revise history.  The biggot[sic] vote?  You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004?  Obama.  Hillary.  A majority in California.  Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?

Yes.

Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.

or... maybe their views evolved along with the rest of the country.  You've labeled the republicans (and only the republicans) bigots for something that happened 10+ years ago when many on the dem side agreed with their position (even if just publicly). 

For the record, I voted against our state ban on gay marriage 10+ years ago.  The prohibition on civil unions bothered me even then. 

[Kris]

Oh, how quickly we like to revise history.  The biggot[sic] vote?  You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004?  Obama.  Hillary.  A majority in California.  Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?

Yes.

Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.

Exactly.  I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky.  But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.

[nereo]

I don't know a whole lot about Jeb Bush and didn't know he didn't believe in climate change. I definitely think we need to start becoming greener and would prefer a president who didn't veto bills that would help with that. Hopefully I'll learn more about all of the candidates on the 8th.

A few of his previous stances:  "It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately manmade." 2011 on fox news.

more (May 2015) recently he seems to have accepted at least the possibility that the climate is changing, but continues to toe the line about whether we are responsible: "the climate is changing... I don't think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It's convoluted... For the people to say the science is decided on this is really arrogant, to be honest with you."

Then he criticized the pope for saying that global warming is a moral issue and  that will impact the poor most of all.  Jeb's criticism (as I understand it) seems to be based on the idea that climate change is too political, and the pope should not be involved in anything political.  Nevermind that he has frequently mentioned his faith as a guiding principle for his politics.

As someone who works directly with climate change this is very important to me.  If Jeb (or any other GOP) were to stand up and say "yes climate change is real, yes humanity has played a large part in it, and yes we need to address it" I'd be much more inclined to vote for them.  As it is, the frontrunners of this 127 candidate field are (IMO) completely on the wrong side of this issue.

[Pigeon]

If you really want to know where candidates stand on an issue, I think it makes a whole lot more sense to look at how they have voted on issues and what they have said about issues over a sustained period of time, than it does to put much stock in how they perform in a debate.  That might be part of the picture, but it's a relatively small part.

[infogoon]

And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .   

I don't even know where you're going with this. Are you suggesting that people who receive government benefits because they are poor must therefore be Democrats, because all Republicans virtuously hate government? Dude, let me assure you that poor Republicans with no earned income are not taking their Medicaid and SNAP benefits and returning them to the government out of ideological purity. WTF?

The difference is that poor Republicans who receive government benefits are all good, god-fearing, virtuous souls who are really hard workers and are just down on their luck, not like those filthy Democrats in the cities who all live on handouts and have no interest in bettering themselves while they pump out children for the welfare check.

(I feel I should explicitly point out at this point that I'm being sarcastic.)

[sol]

If Jeb (or any other GOP) were to stand up and say "yes climate change is real, yes humanity has played a large part in it, and yes we need to address it" I'd be much more inclined to vote for them.

Or, you know, you could vote for a Democratic candidate.  They all seem to be on the right side of this particular issue.

[Chris22]

Oh, how quickly we like to revise history.  The biggot[sic] vote?  You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004?  Obama.  Hillary.  A majority in California.  Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?

Yes.

Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.

Exactly.  I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky.  But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.

I don't know if that is supposed to condemn him or defend him.  Frankly, I think being against something you think is wrong but not wanting to speak up against it for political expediency is at least as bad as being for that wrong thing.  The word "unprincipled" comes to mind.

[Spitfire]

I like Bernie. Income inequality and corporate influence on politics are big problems. He's probably a little too extreme to win or get everything he wants done even if he does win, but at least he stands for something other than whatever will get him the most donations.